Subject: [nfsv4] Summary of Open Issues from NFSv4.1 pNFS Review

From: Lisa Week <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 22:59:19 -0600

Hi all,

In hopes of coming to consensus, the following is a summary of the  
open issues that were identified during the review of Chapter 12  
(pNFS) of the NFSv4.1 specification.  For more context and a complete  
set of the notes from the reviews, check out: http://www.nfsv4- 
editor.org/reviews/draft-10/pnfs/

Please send your comments on the issues listed below.

Thanks,
Lisa

 From Review 1 (http://www.nfsv4-editor.org/reviews/draft-10/pnfs/ 
review_notes_1.txt):
===================================================================

1.) Should LAYOUTCOMMIT be able to return NFS4ERR_NOSPC and  
NFS4ERR_DQUOT?
Some individuals (Benny Halevy) thought that it should be valid, but  
others think strongly that it should not (Dave Noveck and Spencer  
Shepler).

2.) Lines 12890-12906: Should we require a persistent reply cache in  
order to support the layout_hint attribute?

General agreement from Review 2 (http://www.nfsv4-editor.org/reviews/ 
draft-10/pnfs/review_notes_2.txt) was that we don't want to make a  
persistent reply cache a requirement for layout_hint.  A couple of  
proposed solutions are (both given by Noveck):
      a.) Encourage, but not require a persistent reply cache for  
layout_hint.
      A client can do a layout_hint on EXCLUSIVE CREATE, but the server
      may or may not be able to handle it effectively.
      b.) Create a variant of EXCLUSIVE CREATE that allows you to set  
layout_hint.

3.) Has anyone thought about what happens if SETATTR of layout_hint  
occurs after the file has been created and written to?

4.)Line 13464: What is the appropriate time to use GETDEVICELIST vs  
GETDEVICEINFO and when can a client rely on the values returned from  
each operation? (This issue may be close to consensus, but none the  
less, I have listed it.  Email regarding this issue was sent to WG by  
Eisler.  Thread starts at: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ 
nfsv4/current/msg04262.html)

 From Review 2 (http://www.nfsv4-editor.org/reviews/draft-10/pnfs/ 
review_notes_2.txt):
===================================================================
5.) Line 12810: Does the "should" needs to be replaced with "SHOULD"  
or and possibly "MUST"?
6.) Lines 12960-12971: Eisler was worried about applications like gnu  
tar and their interactions with the atimes that are set by  
LAYOUTCOMMIT since the client can set the time to whatever it wants.

_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4